People v. Raines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Raines

207 A.D.2d 463, 616 N.Y.S.2d 233

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 463 (People v. Raines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Raines, 207 A.D.2d 463, 616 N.Y.S.2d 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered August 4,1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly refused to deliver a missing witness charge with respect to a latent fingerprint unit officer, since the People demonstrated that the officer had no knowledge concerning the search for fingerprints in the complainant’s car (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424; People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered August 4,1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly refused to deliver a missing witness charge with respect to a latent fingerprint unit officer, since the People demonstrated that the officer had no knowledge concerning the search for fingerprints in the complainant’s car (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424; People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 463, 616 N.Y.S.2d 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-raines-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack